click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show

The News Hour With Jim Lehrer

News/Business. (2009) New. (CC) (Stereo)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN

SOURCE

TUNER

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 13, Walter Cronkite 5, Chevron 3, Jim Lehrer 3, David Axelrod 3, Mr. Olson 3, U.s. 3, Afghanistan 3, Breyer 2, Jim 2, Roberts 2, Macneil Lehrer 2, U.n. 2, Instd 2, Newshour 2, Cancun 2, Bacall 1, Thecorporation 1, Mr. Keefjustice 1, Documenta 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  WETA    The News Hour With Jim Lehrer    News/Business.   
   (2009) New. (CC) (Stereo)  

    September 9, 2009
    7:00 - 8:00pm EDT  

7:00pm
ctioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer production >> lehrer: good eveng, i'm jim lehrer. onhe "newshour" this wednesy. the lead story is a previeof the president's big healthare speech to congress. with whiteouse advisor david axelrod. and mark shields and did ooks. en, come the other news of t day including e supreme court
7:01pm
argument over restctions on campai spending. the return of the beles with re-mastered sic and a new video game. and tributes and memorieat a service for walter cronkite. major fuing for the newshour with jim lehrer is provideby: >> what the world needs w is energy. the engy to get the economy huing again. the ergy to tackle cllenges like climate cnge. what if that energy came froan energy company? everyday, chevron invest$62 million in people, in ids-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth arod the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of hum energy. chevron. ♪ ( rd rock guitar riff playing )
7:02pm
>> we are intel . >> and bbnsf railway. and with the ongoing suprt of these instutions and foundaons. d... th program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by conibutions to your pbs statn from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehre president obama
7:03pm
prepared today for crucial prime-time speecon health care reform. he plannedo address congress d the nation this evening, i the face of sliding puic opinion polls. "newshour" congrsional correspondenkwame holman has our lead story repor >> reporter:onight's health re speech will be the president's attet to reset the debaten his central legislative initiative. mr. obama underlined tt goal on "abc's" "good morning erica"... >> so,he intent of the speech is to, "a," ke sure that the american people arclear exactly what it is that were oposing. "b," to make sure at democrats anrepublicans understand that i'm open to new ideas, tha we're not being gid and ideological abouthis thing, t we do intend to get somethg done this year. >> reporter:cross the capitol toy, republicans and democrats laid out what th want to hear the present say. >> tonight, the president s an extrrdinary opportunity to lead this nation, totrike a
7:04pm
trulbipartisan stance, to rejecthe ideas that the americaneople have rejected and to embrace the ide that the americ people are prepared to embrace. health care reformuilt on bringing real competion and real choice to our private insuranceconomy is the key. >>eople are coming to the mmon sense conclusions that once they' dealt with all the misinformation and flat out lies, in my circumstances, that n it's time for the truth to unfold. i believe at the president will be that truth deliver thisvening and that this demoatic caucus will come together and pass a bill andut it on the presidens desk. >> reporter:t's already clear that the president will endorse a so-cald public option a government-run insurae plan to compete with private insurers. but, he is not expecd to demandt be part of a final
7:05pm
bill, and that a critical point here at the capil. repuicans remained firmly opposed to a public option ngressman zach wamp of tennessee warn again it would lead to a governmentakeover of the health care industry. >> if i were the presidenti woulpress the restart button and say "let's find some bipartisan middlground and art incremental reform." i don't think he'soing to do that. i think he going to say "this ishy we have to have a public option." but people a not leaving this country to go to great brita d canada to get their healcare. it's the other way aund becae our system, while it needs to be improved, still thbest in the world. >> rorter: in addition, lincoln davis and other modete house mocrats said again they still ha reservations about the public option. >> it has not been explained there's not been real explanation. there's not even a bl, there's not a statement. it's just says aublic option. and unl that public option is fined, it will be very diicult for a lot of us to vo for it. >> reporter: but liber mocrats-- such as xavier becea of california-- pressed to keep a public optioin any fil bill. they insisted it wou give
7:06pm
amicans more health insurancea2 chois and lower prices. >> giving americans thathoice helps prome competition, it helps drive do costs. and the c.b.o.old us it's in the hundreds obillions of dollars. sof you want reform you've got to offer consume choice. you want refm, you've got to bring wn the cost. yowant to both bring down the costnd give people choice, you've g to have a public option. >> repter: over in the senate, finance committechair max baucus h been meeting with a smalgroup from both parties, trying to haer out a bipartis bill. today, he promis to unveil his own plan next week, withou republican support if necessy. >>eporter: but baucus also said he now believes te has run out on iluding a public option in any sena bill. >> i think frankly, with increasing cviction, that a public optiocannot pass the senate.
7:07pm
as each day goesy, talking to senators, privatstatements and publictatements and some more d more-- my view and i could be wrong, but it's my lief that a public opon could not. reporter: other democrats o thfinance committee sharply disagreed, includingay rockefeller ofest virginia. >> if you' not going to do the public option, then u have to have an alternativ and you justay, "we'll do co- ops," and nobodynows what they are, nobody can exain them. >> reporter: on anher health care stickinpoint, a spokesman for thpresident said he wod address the need for aningful medical malpractice reform--omething long advocated republicans. west virgia congresswoman shelley moore capito said at is something she and other members of the g.o.p. would weome. >> i'd like to see us to the common areas where wcan agree rather than reshaping. a more targeted refo is what i would prefernd what i'm looking for. so i'm going to be interesd to
7:08pm
see how spific the president gets. i think he nds to be very specific and i thi people are going to be stening. >> reporr: the president also aimed to sway public opion. a sees of polls has shown falling supporfor his handling the health care issue-- and for proposalcirculating in congress. andr kohut is president of the pew rearch center. >> three quarterof the people we questioned this past weend saidhis issue is personally important to me, a 2/3 said, i don't understand it. and a lot them worry that the president has make clear whathese reforms mean for ordinary amerins, how they're going to bpaid for, and what the coequences are, both for the country and r individual cizens. and so far, the are a lot of questions out each of these points. >> repter: other poll resus have shown amerins still support the president's ids over those of republans. he aimedonight to build that support and ultimaly, to sign health care form into law by year's e.
7:09pm
>> lrer: and to our interview with white house sior advisor david axelrod. he spokeo judy woodruff from the white house ess briefing ro a short time ago. >> woodruff: davidxelrod, thank yofor talking with . >> great to beere,udy. >>oodruff: what's at stake for the president toght and s agenda? >> judy i don't thinkt's a question o what's at stake for the prident. the question is what's at stake for average ericans, workg class people, middl class people who have surance today but are often dromd from the inrance when they get sick orave a preexisting condition and soone in eir family can't get have out--pocket expenses that ave them broke becaus thers no cap. or people who don'thave insurance today and n't get it becse they don ge it throu their employer, and it's too pensive to get. they have a lot at stake in is debate, and those are the people whohe president is speakg fortonight. >>oodruff: the president
7:10pm
id today he had let this deba get away from m in august, that he let e-- left lot of biguity out there, that the opponents have fild the airwaves. is tt why this spee was necessary? >> thispeech was always anned. ok, we had a strate, and that strategy was informed by hisry that don't bring a ready-made bill at the ont end and try to foreclose debate. we made out some broad princies and challenged the congress tmeade them. four of the five committees finish work before august the fifth commtee of jurisdtion, the senate finance committee, isoing get it done next week announced toy. we'rfather along and in a better positn to get this done than aany time in history anwe've been at this discussiofor 100 years. so, you know, i think it's working as it-- as we pected it. we always yhow at some point the present was gointo have to bring strandz of this together a
7:11pm
bring clarityo it and some diction and now's t ti. >> woodruff: i this more of an expnatory speechgiven the myths the presidt says are out there or mre of a persuaive speech jik think tre's persuasion. he willalk about the cost of inaction, which woulde severe for the country a business and famili everywhere so he's going to do a ttle-- but this is, as y know, it's a very complicated subject, and the st thing he can d tonight is bring real clarity because one thing wenow, when people a mixed when asked do y support present's plan, when they hear what the plan is there's strong support for it. toght is the night to give people the fac on what e plan does andoesn't do and i thinkhen he do there will be a very positive reactiono it.
7:12pm
>> woodruff:ou're saying he'll bring re clarity. heimself has sai there's going to be clarity after this speech. and yet, isn'tthere stil give in the prident's posion, for example, on the so-called publi option? >> well, i don't think clarity means intractibility. the president belies in a public oion as part of is health inurance exchange that we're going to create so people who don't have insurance today and ball smss businesses who don't have insunce because they can't get it for a price they can affor can get it. we believe public insurance option, would give peoplings ons. there are many peopl in this country where one inrer thoroughly dominates a mark. th's not good for consumers. it doesn'tring down prices. it doesn't produceuality of care. we want comtition and choi and that's the idea the. having said that the president will s this is not the whole of health insuranceeform. it's a ans to a go, and that goal to bring ability and security to
7:13pm
people who have inrance and insurance to people who don't have bringthe cost down that are so ineckerable, and the doubling ocosts in last years. we just can'tgo on like is. those prlems are the on he's ting to address public option is onef the meanof addressing them, t it's certainly not t whole of the debate. >> woodruff: so when you have some decrats, folks your side sayinghey mu have the public option, othedemocrats saying there's no way they would support it,here's the middle ground? >> believe thatanyone who has been fhting to bring stability and serity to our health system to help ge real health iurance reforms for ople who have insunce and genuine option forpeople who don't so they can geit at a pre they can afford, and they'll get tax credits if they can't afford it, i think tat is what we've been working for, for a ry long time, and i think yoll find broad nsensus for it. >> woodruf david axelrod, we'realso hearing from
7:14pm
administraon officials today that there's n real surprise if wh the president is going to say do you really expect people to move in yr direction after toght? >> judy, as i said before, thinthat more than anything, the ameran people have hed the ports of various committe of congress. they've heard the distortions of opponents health reform abouthose proposals. what they're goi to hear tonight is the presint's plan in someetail, and i thinit will have an effect. every poll i've seen suggests when peop hear the facts, not the fiction, buthe facts,that there's rong support for this. an you know, i think most americans understand that we're on unsustainable path re. that we can't ep paying more and morand more a getting less and eless less. anthat's the sittion we ce today. so they want to keep the stem we have, but they want it work for them and not just the insurance companies. >> woodruff: senat max baucus, course chairman of the sene finance committee, said toy he inks there's a good chance
7:15pm
the reblicans will not support healthare reform in the enddo you think you still have a shot at gettng republican ves? >> we want twork with anybody who will worwith . and we hope-- ateast many on the other side have pai p service to the notio that this a expriss has to be dealt with. now the time to step up and ow whether you' sincere about th or not pup will see tonight tt the president embraces ideas that re offered decrats and ideas tat were offered by republicans. he's probably met with republicans-- with members of the opposite party more than any esident has over the course of this eight-month debate on this issue. and it up to them now to decide whether ty want to walk throu the door and be partf the solution or whether ey want to score litical victory. senator dmin sa we can cripple the president an scor a great political victory by stping health surance reform. well, that wld be really unfortunate fothe american pele ifhat's the attude that he and otrs ke because they're the onesho are payi these--
7:16pm
whhave seen their pemiums uble, their out-of-pket expenses explode, who have seen premiums grow three times mo than wages and he needs to looin the eye of the peoplef his state and say, "i'm willing to sacrifice relief for you fairness in your dling with insuran companies, in orr to score a victory over the president >> woodruff: david axeod, we'll l be listening tonight. thank you very much. >> thanks, judy. good to be with you. >> lehrer: now to shields d brooks. syndicated columnist mark shields and ew york times" columnist david brooks >> i'moing to ask you the same question judy just asd david axelrod that he didn't answe which is what's at stake for the president tonit? >> well, he' going to get something back. it is an overwhelmin percentage there wl be a health care bil the qution is how big it will be. it's not so muchhe nguage of the spee that will be interesting. it's how the administration has moved. there are a bunchof policies which he been floating arounwhich they're noembracing and
7:17pm
there's a move towards the center. the public plan is dead. d the people-- the vibe out of the white use makes that clear. not that it maers too ch. it was nev that central. the her thin they're moving on is things like medical malpractice, things ke tax exemptionon employee befits. there are a whole series of ways they're moving in ways which will make e life a t easier for moderate democrats and potentially easier for some moderate republicans. th're moving a bit towds the center. they're bringing dn the cost there's en movement. it's not just a speech tonight. it's a bit of a new plan. >> lehrer: doyou believe, a new plan? a new plan. the president hathe audience in e hall, the membs of qng congress, and the audience outsidehe hall, and he's got a different task with ea one ofhem. lehrer: aren't they related tonigt? >>fter this speech tonight, those in the ha-- he's
7:18pm
talking to docrats basically. i think he has to he concluded that he's not talking th same way he was during the campaign when h was talking about reaching across the divide, forgng consensus and bipartanship. by now, the most oimistic of obserrs have conuded the reblican position on health care reform has erwhelmingly been to borrow a phraserom history, massive resiance. and heas to reach the decrats in that hall tonight, and they have to leave ere encouraged and inspired. which theyave not been. and they areharged with the knowledge that ey're facing a difficult polital task, riy polical task, but it's important and it's urgent. and they're-. >> lehre so if you're a democrat sitting tre tonight, u've got to figure out a wayo get something-- to go wi the president this, that & he going to make some moves at will make it ssible. >> lehrer: and he's ing to be constan
7:19pm
thadministration's sition the public option-- i hapn to disagree wh david on the importan of the public opon. i think it i centr if we're talking out insurance companis--. >> lehrer: is itoing to be in there? >> i agree it cann pass the nate. it ia difficult will be and tricky political reality for the democratin the house. so i think we're heading towards probably that the senateill vote fit becauswhat you don't want too is ask house democts to ca-- to take a difficult vote, inclung the public option, thatis not going anywhere in the senate i do agree that the chances of its passing in the senate are remote. t i think that the president has to energize and has to speak specically 's been back and forth. it's own a slim sliver, it's essentia there's bargaing chip. there has to be a sen of deniteness coming out tonight. >> lehrer: what abouthe idea that senator snowe has fload for weeks, setti
7:20pm
up a triggering mechanism for the public plan. don't have it in therat the beginning but iffter a year it los like you need it we can reconsider it, that that might be a way to bring in moderate democra d some moderte republican >> max baucus said he hears a lot about the trigger in the media but not in the senate. theublic plan is not going to be there. the rean i think it's unimportant, at mostou t 3% involved. they don't think it woul have a b effect on the market. it wouldn't ing down costs. it wouldn't be abig competitive effect. i think it's jusecome a set thg, and it's not going to bin the plan, trigger oro trigger. the one thing-- the one tension th mark touched on i do youive the nd of rabble-rsing speech to really the democrats, which obama ve earlier this we. >> lehrer: the afl-cio. that's whathat was. th was a rally speech we've always had to ght. we're going to fht for this. do you give apeech that the moderate would like to
7:21pm
hear, we'rgoing to t medicare costs $600 biion. we're going to really control spenng. we're going to create risk priums? risk pools. >> lehrer: what's a ri premm. >> it's an idein the john mccain plan get, people without inrance into tese pools. so thas wonky. so the question is it a fiting speech or wonky, reassuring speech. >> lehrer: cane do wonky and get away with it tonight? >> i don't think he can. it isn't a labor day rally speech. wenow that. he does have to reassure the two code words out of the white house, twoabstract nouns this week are "stability" and "security >> lehrer: stabity and serity. ability of what? >> the stabili of the health plan--talking to the 180 miion people who have health ce, and they're talking to the pple who were bor on or before the
7:22pm
administration ofranklin roosevelt whare on medicare, and who are esseially-- and i speak of contemporaries-- whore essentially afraid ofwo thgs-- change and death. and it's goto be assured that this change is t going to be cat cliz mick and change the lives because medicare is very, very popular program. there's got to be a realit, jim. there are 20,000 amerins accordinto the national academy of sciences w every year dieecause they don't sea doctor. we're talkingbout--. >>ehrer: is he going to talk about th in inspirational terms? >> he's got inspire and encourage democrs and let them kw that they've got a strong-- strong leader who is not going to-- wh is not going to85icate againas he has on the public oion. >> ronald reagan could speak in a certain way because h had a philosophy of free markets and ere was a whe philosophy of entrepreurship.
7:23pm
bismarck orsomebody on the left could say-- a mark said. let's take teddy kennedy could say, believe in llective action. are going to do this together through the mbined power of the government. philosophy that create inspiring rhetic. barack oba doesn't come >> lehrer: let's get erybody together. >> that's just not part of who he is. >> you cannot sit there as a demoat tonight, jim, and say here's a guy who has beenolled by the republics. they don't hav an idea. th don't have a plan, otherthan olympia snowe. i mean, forget assley. they're gone. the gang of x is now the gang of four in e senate. i mean, he's got to acknowledge, lo, your good will, it's trustut verify. it's up to you to me over and prove yoself because i know theonly way i'm going
7:24pm
to pass ts is with my people. >> lehrer: i've got a idea-- let'swatch and listen to wh he says tonight, and then 'll talk about itgain. >> lehrer: in other ne today: a mexican airlinerith 112 people oboard was briefly hijacked from cancun to mexi city. the crew and passengers, includg some americans, were released unharmed aftelanding. mexican police arrested to eight men,nd news accounts sa they were bolivians who want to speak to the mexican prident. the hijaers allegedly threatened to blow up the ane, but poli found no bomb on board. british commans in afghanistan frd a "new york times" reporter in an early morng raid. but stephen farrels afghan tranator and a briti soldier were killed the action. we have a report narrated paul davieof independent television news.
7:25pm
>> repter: the special forces have dappeared with the briton they came to rese. here, local afans deal with thaftermath of an operation that succeeded butnly at a cost the body they artransporting is that of an afghan journalt who was also a ctive but was not so fornate. this is e man who was freed alive:tephen farrell, a british porter employed by "the new york time" a specialistn frontline journalism. it was four daysgo, he and his colleague mohamm munadi were taken gunpoint from their car near t town of kundus, a kidnappinghat was kept secret at the time. only n can the story be told. was early on saturday the t reports were abducted by taliban fighters. their driver manag to escape and raised the alarm a srt timeater. the abduction was kept sret while specl forces prepared for their operation. befo dawn today, they moved
7:26pm
in, but a brith soldier, the afghan journalist ana local woman diedn the rescue. in an count published on "the new york times" bsite, farrell describes at happened. "we were all in a room the libs all ran. it was obviously aaid. we tught they would kill us. we thoughthould we go out. there wereullets all around us. i could hearritish and afghan voices." >> reporter:arrell and his coeague were in kunduz gathering eviden of the accidentallaughter of afghan civilians by no warplanes. there are reportthat he ignored warnings of liban activity. >> reporter:he prime minister was woken early this mning to be briefed on the speciaforces rescue, its succs, and its cost. >> lehrer: germa, france and britain prsed the u.n. today to call meeting on afghanistan's future britain offered to ht the inrnational conference, with one part held in kab and the other in a major intertional city yet to beamed. the aim wod be to set timelines for haing over reonsibilities to afghan
7:27pm
authorits. inraq, eight people from the same family died after a car bomb exploded in kkuk. iraqi police said the hicle was parked outde a house owned by a sunni tribal lead. they said the mb apparently went off as itas being rigged in the car. iran h now submitted a package of new proposals on itnuclear standoff with thu.n. the irian foreign minier handed the packageoday to the u.s. and five otr world powers. there was no word on what e proposals included. the u.s.mbassador to the u.n., susarice, said the iranian ideaneed to be "a serious, substantive and cotructive respse." ecomic conditions across most of the u.s. showed improment in new government survey toda e federal reserve reported i found gns that economic activity is stabilizing inll t one of its 12 districts. on wall street, stocks mov
7:28pm
ahead for a fourth strght day. the dow jones indurial average gainedearly 50 points to close 54at 97. at 9547. the naaq rose 22 points to close at 2060. now, today's supreme court arguments about a major campgn finance case. gwen ifill h the story. >> ifill: today waround two r a case involving an anti- hillarclinton documentary produced during the 2008 predential campaign. last spring, the jtices declined to rule on whetr broadcasting the film olated campaign fance regulations. instd, they asked the lawyers to come back tcourt. is time to argue the virtue rolling back campaign financ lawsntirely. marcia coy of "the national law journal" was athe court todaand the court released audiapes of what turned out to be livy arguments. so how do we go from aase
7:29pm
that involve ts movie called "hillary: the movie how did tat morph into a huge assault o campaign finance w? >> well, it was a surprise, sically, to i think many people. we were expecting a decision on whether the mcca-feingold act provision on brocast of ad that advocate the election or feat of a candidatepplied to tis paicular movie in june. and june, instd, the court issu the order for-- a number of-- well, recent years, a number justices ha voiced skepticism about campaign finance lawsnd their constituonality under th first amendment. and so the court, i think responding to some of those justices' concerns,ssued the order, asking the parties in thi case to address whether it should overrule in whole or in part twokey precedents, one from 1990 and another from 2003 that essentially bann the
7:30pm
use of general tasury funds by corporatns and unions in campaignpending. >> ifill: so it potentially could roll bacall the fund-raising limitput in place over the years. well, it as relas to corpore and union expenditures. and i'm talking herebout indirect speing. there are limits on direct contributions to cdidates anthey would still stand, but this is just using geral treasury funds. right now, the law allows corporations and uonso speain campaigns throu political action commiees, which ey can create but have to be funded by individual contbutions. coorations and unions may not use general treasury funds. so thas wat is at stake here, a lot more money. >> ifill: because the oba administtion is charged with defending the existing law. we hrd from elena kagan,
7:31pm
who this was her first time argues beforehe cour >> she faced an uphill battle here because three justices, have alady said in prior decisionshat they would overrule this 1990 precedent, "austin vers miigan chamber of commerce" in which the court upheld the ban o corporate expenditures, and she also faced the fact that the juification, the vernment interests for upholding the n on those exnditures has been criticized in recent inions by chief justice roberts and alito. she had potentially five votes agnst her going in. >> ifill: we g to hear me of the auo tape from the argumedao t ay,rond chf justice roberts and elenaagan got into i a
7:32pm
little bit. let's listen to thatfirst exchange. a large corporation, just ke an individual, has many dirse interests. the cooration may want to support a particar caidate but they may be ncerned, just as you say, about what the shareholders are going to think about that th may be concerned their shareholde rather they spentheir money doing something el. the idea that corporations ju are different than individuals in tt respect, i just don't think it holds up. >> all i was suggests mr. keefjustice is corporations havactually a fiduciary obligationo their shareholders to increase value. that's their single rpose, thr goal. >> so if aandidate-- tke aobacco company and candidate running on t platform thathey ought to ma tobacco illegal, presumably that coany would maximize its sharolders' interests by opposing thelection of that individual. >> but everything is geared through thecorporation's self-intert in order to maximize pfits, in order
7:33pm
to maximize revenue, in ordeto mximize value. individus are more complicated than tt. so when corporations engage e political process, they dot with that set of, you know, bnders-- i don't mean it be pejorative. that's whawe want corpations to do-- >> iuppose some do. let's say you have 10 individuals and they each contribute $1,000 to a corpation, and they say, "we want this cooration to convey a particular messe." why can't they dohat? if they did that as a partnership it would be all rit? >> wl, it sounds to me as though theorporation yore describing is the corporatioof the kinds we have in this case, where one can assume the membersll sign on to the corporation's ideological missn, where the corporatn in fact has an ideological mission. >> lehrer: why is that distction important? >> she is saying we need to keep this ban in place beuse one of the gornment interests here that justifies it is
7:34pm
shareholder protecti. d that is the exchange. she was ying to show as llthat corporations engage the political proce in a way that's very diffent from what individuals do, a that's what makes them potentily so dangerous. so one of the gornment's interests hereshe says, is shareholr protection. the send government interest that she argued today-- and e also encountered sharp questioning om the stices and i mentioned earlier-- is to apride prevent, quid pro quo corrupon. >> ifi: the fip side of this argent was justice breyer who gotnto it a little bit with ted colson thettorney behalf ofhe citizens united, who produced the the film. it w more about the consequences of at this ruling cld be. ow let's listen to that change. >> suppose we errule these two cases. would that leave the count in a situation where
7:35pm
corporations and tra unions can spend as much they want in t last 30 days on television ads, et cetera, o this kind, but political parties couldn't, cause polical parties can only spend hard mon on this kind of expenditure? d therefore, the group that charged with the rponsibility of building a platrm that will appeal to a majority of americanis limited, but the groups that ha particular interests, like rporations or trade unio, can spend as much they want? am i right aut the consequence? if i am right, what doe do abt it? >> ihink you are wrong about e consequence. the are 27 states that have no limitions on either contributions expenditures and at-- the earth is not... >> no, i'm not... i'm no.. i saying am i right in thinki that if you win, the pitical party can't spend is money, it's limited to ha money contributions, butorporations and trade unions canpend unlimited fund
7:36pm
>> well, if... if thcourt decides in favorf the arguments that ware making here, i thk what you are suggesting is that bause there are other limitations that someone hanot challenged in is case, that that would be somehow unir and unbalanced. >> no, i'm not sugsting that. i am suggesting we will ma a hash of th statute, and if we are going to make a hash of is state, what do we do about it? >> ifill: it's fun to hear theack-and-forth that we pes never get to hear. this gs tohe breast of this. >> it es. mr. olson has a fundament rst amendment argument here, and th is the first amenent protects corpations d inviduals. the supre court has said . if the government wants to regulate each particularly political speech which lies, he says, at the co of the first amenent, it has to have compelling reason.
7:37pm
thetwo reons offered by solicitor neral kagan-- and chief justice rorts got her to cncede this-- have never been accepted by the courtf justifition forestricting rporate spending. >> ill: by conceding that, es she also concede e's in kind of a poorposition? >> no, s doesn't, becau she comes back and ss the situation today is not what was in 1990, and the terests that the government is offerinow were shown to be justified by congress whenit enacted the mccain-feingold actn 2002. the congre found, and justice breyer pointedhis ou that people believe that their representates cobought. an as justice breyer said isn't that a sufficient government intert to justify thisan? >> lehrer: o course we're al watching-- in our case stening to orlistening for-- justice somayor, the muest mber of the court, whoumps right into t argume today, and is--
7:38pm
soundea lot like on defining whether thiwas a constitutial issue or something congress cou hand. let's take a listen to jud sotomayor. >> mr. olson, are u givi up on your earlier argumes that there are ways to avoid the constitional queson to resolvthis case? i know that we asked forurther briefing on this particur issue of overtning two of our court's ecedents. but aryou giving up on your earliearguments that there are atutory interpretations that would avoid the constutional question? >> no, justice sotomor. what... what there arell kinds of lines tt the court could draw which would provide a victory toy client. there e so many reasons why the feral government did not have the right to crimalize this 90-minute documenta that had to do with electionsbut what the court addreed specificly in the washington right to life ca is that the lines if they are to bdrawn must not blines that are ambiguous, that invite litigation, that holthe threat
7:39pm
of prosecutionver an individual; and in practical application that is what t... >> mr. olson, my difficulty is thayou make very impassioned arguments abouwhy this ia bad system that the courts have deveped in its jurisprudence, b we don't have any rerd developed below. you make a l of arguments out how far and the nature o corporatio, single corporatns, single stockholder rporations, et cetera. but there is no reco that i am reviewing that actually es into the vy question that you're arguing exists,hich is a patchwork ofegulatory and jusprudential guidelines thatre so unclear. >> ifill: listening justice sotomayofor the fit time, how did he do compared to other justis' first time? >> she seemed right at home. it didn't takeer long to
7:40pm
get involved, and her question remnded the court of another issue that guides the court in making decision, called constutional avoidance. whenever possible, the court tridz to avoid a constitutional question if it can decide the case on other grounds. and that's what she was getting at. shouldn't they avoid it if they can dide this case on narrow ground. >> ifill: ich justicesre we watching in this cse for the outcome? >> well, after the argunt-- going into the argument we were wahing justice alitin particular. he had voiced skepticism about this. d say after the argument, it seems that hes on the side of perhaps overruling the two precedes. we know that kenned,calia, and thomas would vote similarly, we think. an the chief maybe. whether he's willing to ta this big step or not, it's unclear. >>fill: so there's room between outrightverruling, or overturning thesetwo
7:41pm
precedents and-- doesn'- doest he believe in sari desis. >> that's thother issue hanging over this se that justic sotomayor brought up and so did oths. justice alito didn't think a decision from 1990 and a decisionw 2003 wereall thatld and perhaps not deserving the stare decisis. this case, if the cou does errule these two-- especiallyhe 1990 cision-- would mark a fundamental chge in how r elections are funded. oppones and supporters ofk the restriction oncorporate spending he disagr on the practical impact-- pporters of the restriction believe itould be like turning a spigot on full force in terms money flowing into campaigns but the opponents of the restrictions arg there are 23 statethat don't have restctions and nody's
7:42pm
saying they're overwhmingly corrupt. lehrer: congress might be writing mpaign law inhe middleave cpaign year. ank you very much. >> my pleasure. >> lehre you can listen to all of today's arguments athe supreme court on o web site at newshour.pbs.org. next, a "gooye, hello" to the beatles as the music moves in new forms into the 21st centy. jeffrey brown ports. ♪ >> brown: if beatlemania eve really went aw, it's certainly back with a new und and in a new form of media. the new sound comes from the release ofigitally re-masted versions of the entire beatl catague. records originally relsed between 1963 and 1970. c.d.s have already topped th brith amazon charts.
7:43pm
>> do you think you'll buy ts? >> oh, for sur i mean, it's the beatl, how could you not buy it? every song. >> bro: audiophiles can even chooseetween a stereo and mono version. here's an example ofhe crisp sound of the newiscs, ♪ well she s just 17 and u know what i mean ♪ and the w she looked was way beyond compare ♪ so how cou i dae with another oooo ♪ when i saw her standing there♪ ♪ en there's "the beatles-- ro band," a newideo game which allows fs to play along. 's poised to take on "guitar hero" and other popular titl in the hugand growing gaming world. >> even thvisuals and what you see livend going on, it kind of plays tricks th your eyes.
7:44pm
i was just like, concentte, concentrate. but it's so ch fun. you really getnto the songs, pecially the drums becse you get to h. >> brown: none of this is chp- - the video game retls for $250, ile the recordings runs at least $200. the questionow is how willing a new generation will be to-as their 1964 alb was titled-- "meet e beatles." >> brownmore now from tiriley. he's a contribing music critic for n.p.r. and is author of the bk, "tell me whya beatles commentary." tim, sta with the new recordin: what does it mean to re-masr these old albums and why is that such a b event in the ca of the beatles? >> well, with thisigital remastering, wha you're talking about is a mor refurbhing of one of the essentl milestones in the
7:45pm
ck music catalog,nd, you know, over the pas half ntury, we've watched as popular cuure had gotten a t more scholarly inrest an it ever h before. so the analogies woulde, ke, you know, if wee aling with a new version ofomething by charlie chlain, y "city lights" or a new prin of orn well "citizen kane," the beatles catery has that kind o central prominence inock music history. i'm sorry--. >> brown: no, no, go ahead. >> the otherhing we're talking about is is a period of music history in th 1960s when the beaes are bridging an era betwee live rformance of this music and the recorded art part of wh the beatle do is they brg us into the rerding era so they're doing more tn composing songs. they're actuay composing cords. and thatbecomes very, very clear with this new digial remast. >> brown: wellyou know, you talk about the interes for holars. what about the rest of us?
7:46pm
i was reading today that over time, worldwirkd beatles albu have so something like 600 million copies. everybody watchinghis has heard the beatles most of us cold sing many of their songs. what do hear? what do we atually hear in the new rordings? >> well, of course, there's a cynicism that's built in now how many times you ha to to buy these beatl albu because they've been sold and resold in so many different rmats bu i'd put it this way-- i think thers a really interestg irony betweenow far the beatlesecede into history and yet in terms of fidelity we get coser and closer to thsound they actually made. with this digital remast, it's kind of like we're removing theotton from our ears. there really i this sense of all of these famiar songs are made sdenly frh and new again. in tt example, you played of t sereo sound from "i saw her standi there," one of the things that's
7:47pm
especially vif vividn this remast cert hand clas. and you would thin that woulbe rher minor detail and it really wouldn't make so much difference but in the context of this recoing, the hand claps actually spring out anare onof those dails that give you a whole n perspective on the whole. so this really is a case where all of these tiny little details, the vocal flections, the intake of breath, sometimes it' a minor little guitar squiggle you haven't hea before-- but it lends to your understanding how hardhese musicianworked to make this music. >> brown: i'llait for to you get your earpiece in so you can hear me. are you okay now? ank you. >> brown: wh about the video game? this i clearly reaching oit to a new generaon, a whole ne media form that the for the beatles,t least in their haay, dn't exist.
7:48pm
at's going on there >> i thinkit's interesting the beles are embracing this new medium. the beatles have aays had a very special, magical relationship wh the children othe world. every child who's introduced to this sic rponds to it almost visceray and inuse itis. there is a woderful child-like magic that has always been there. a lot of childrenot to know the beatles muc through the movie "yellow submarine." they're thinking there's new medium and ey keep getting requests to enter new medm and they rally like interactive element of thi video game, and since video games re so popular a everyone was jumping io them, maybe this would be a new way to introduce the next generation the beatle catalog andget the kids t interact mo with the music. it does providan interesting and new ki of platform forhe future sicians to get handle on how interestg and
7:49pm
complicatethis music can be >> brown tim, we just have about 30 sonds. i saw pa mccartney wrote a leer to a british newspaper today saying h never imagined the beatles would last even more than a coup of years. what expins the coinuing terest, the continng portance that they could pull this together soany years ter? >> well, in- you know, in 15 seconds, it's just remarkly interesting, phisticate, and complicated music thas ry enjoiblg on the surface but has great range and pth and pory underath. and i am considerably amazed at how sturdy ts music is >> thankou very much. >> lehrer: youan learn more abt the beatles music makeover on our art beat page at newshour.p.org. and yocan watch video clips, including one out the making sergeant pepper's lonely hearts club nd.
7:50pm
>> lehrer: finally tonig, a ibute to walter cronkite. he was remembered todaat a memorial serce at lincoln center in w york. two pridents along with colleagues andriends spoke. here are some excerpts. >> wter cronkite was the most cuous man i have ever met. he always nted to know everything aut everything. and he wanted know it before everyone else knew i us to call us around the beats, one day he callednd asked a questi for the first ti i could actually answer. he said, well thank you b, this old grey head had a question mark above . really talked that way!
7:51pm
>> i thought he was an astonishg man. liked his inquiring mind and his caring heart. and he did somethingor my familyhat was so simple and en now, it's hard to talk about. but in a very tultuous summer in our personal lives, 1998,e were up on martha's vinerd. walter asked us to go saing. we'll just go out and il around. he said, someby might take a picture oft, but so what. i'll never forget that at the time, could have done with a picture wh walter cronkite.
7:52pm
>> he s the godfather who owed us the way to be good journalists, good faly man, good citens without one of thosroles canceling out the otr. so walter cronkite was a seminal force in the transformation of is country. in many ways wter cronkite and l of those early pioneers lifted a lamp and showed uthe wideworld and allowed us to >> flight after flht, walter was there as aomforting presen when mission was a succesand on painful times when failureame calling. talked uall through it all. in addition to passion for sailg, our legacy in space was his calling too. all of us who ew in space are grateful f his passion for
7:53pm
sciee, commanding presence that made everstep in space exciting for americans oevery ag and that's the way iwas walter, and alys will be. ( apause ) >> walter cronkite invited t naon to believe in him. and he never betyed that ust. thats why so many of you enred the profession in the first place. that is why thstandards he set for journalists ill stand. at is why he loved and value all of you and wloved and valued walter not on as the rarest of n but as an indispensable llar of our soety. he's reuted with his beloved
7:54pm
betsy, now, watcng the stories of this century unfold wit boundls optimism, every so often punctuatinthe air with a gleel "oh boy." we are grateful to h for altering and illumining our time. and for the portunity he gave to us to sayhat yes, we too were there. thank you very mh. >> lehrer: waltecronkite died inuly at age 92. agn, the major developments of the day president obama preped for a cruciaprime-time address to congress and the nation health care form. a mexican airliner wit112 peop on board, iluding some americans, w briefly hijacked from cancun to mico city. everne was released safely. and itish commandos in afghanistan freed a "new yor times" reporter o'd been held since saturd.
7:55pm
his translator andne of the commandos we killed. on newshour.s.org, an online- only feature tonight: you can read aboutradeoffs journalists make when porting from csed societies. that is in margaret warn's rerter's notebook on our world view page. >> lehrer: we'll see you online, and later this eveng at 8:00 p.m. easte time for live coveragof the president's health care speech, bo on the air and streamed live on o web site: newshour.pbs.org. and again here torrow evening atur regular "newshour" time. for now, i'm jim lrer. thank you and good night. major fundg for the newshour with jim lehrer is provided : >> this is t engine that connects abundant grain fromhe american healand to haran's best selling wheat, whe keeping 60illion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere every year
7:56pm
bnsf, the engine that coects us. chevron. this is the power ofuman engy. intel. supporting matand science edation for tomorrow's innovators. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technogy, and improved economic performance d financial literacy in the 21st centu. d with the ongoing support o these institutio and undations. and... this program was made poible the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributio to your pbs station from viewers like yo thank you. captioning sponsoreby macneil/lehrer prodtions capatonygbh edccesiagrp at wh ccess.wgbh.org c
7:57pm
7:58pm
7:59pm